Recommendations for breaking into medium format

[markbau]

SG got it right. Stop beatting around the bush and go with the best: Hasselblad.

I often wonder who bought Hasselblads. When I worked in a lab in the 90's the vast majority of MF film that came in was 67. It was rare to see 6x6 film. Was it mainly a rich amateurs camera?

 

[CJG]

Almost every commercial photographer I knew in the NY area, including myself used Blads. I ended trading mine in on RZ67's for a variety of reasons.

 

[MattKing]

I often wonder who bought Hasselblads.

In my market, wedding photographers and studio photographers who did a lot of on location work.
There were many more professionals using Hasselblad then there were using 6x7.
But it really did depend on the market.
I spent a couple of years printing proofs and machine enlargements for a group of wedding and studio photographers - none of them used 6x7.

 

[DREW WILEY]

ArcBody ... Ha! For the same price, one could buy a Packard (automobile, that is, not a Packard shutter), And for the same level of clumsy dysfunctionality as an ArcBody, one should opt on a Packard with four flat tires. They're branded Hassle for a reason.

And there's apparently also a logical reason why wedding photographers have trouble breaking out of that measly income calling - they should have started with more ergonomic gear to begin with, like a Pentax 6X7. They're great for wedding photography. I once had a co-worker that specially requested I photograph his wedding with larger gear. So I took a studio-style couples portrait using a 4x5, and then went to the wedding itself with my P67, exactly like they requested. But the Pastor's wife told me they had a rule that photographers had to stand in the back. No problem; I came with a tele lens. And just one KER-LUNK of the big SLR mirror, and the resultant shock wave blasted all the intervening guests clear out of the sanctuary, plus the pesky Pastor's wife herself, leaving nobody in between to impede my shot. Why didn't Hassie ever think of a great feature like that?

 

[Sirius Glass]

My father only drove Packards.

And if you had asked him, he would have told you how great cars they were.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I often wonder who bought Hasselblads. When I worked in a lab in the 90's the vast majority of MF film that came in was 67. It was rare to see 6x6 film. Was it mainly a rich amateurs camera?

When I joined APUG I became convinced to trade in the inherited Mamiya C330f with three lenses and every accessory in the known world for the Hasselblad, for one of many reasons that the prices were too good to ignore: bodies from $200US to $400US and most lenses from $400UD to $800US.

 

[DREW WILEY]

My older brother was a commercial photographer, and made most of his money doing 4x5 nature stock shots, but also used his Technika handheld with rangefinder focus for portraiture. He was good at it, but also had quite a bit of Rollei SL66 gear - now that was a nice 6X6 system! But once he got his hands on my P67, he never looked back, and even photographed my own wedding with it. They were once quite popular for pro portrait and studio work in this area. Even the '22 wild elephant calendar my wife just put up on the refrigerator has P67 shots.

 

[markjwyatt]

The difference between 645 and 35mm is big enough to make as much difference as 6x6, especially if you end up cropping from square to a standard paper size, as 645 is directly proportional/ Even 35mm ends up being cropped a bit if you want to fill the sheet.

View attachment 294308

Agree. I use 6x6 and often treat it as a 6x4.5 that does not need rotation. On the other hand when I use the full negative (square) it is very nice and big. 6x9 is very nice too (I have an Ihagee folder for that).

 

[Sirius Glass]

My older brother was a commercial photographer, and made most of his money doing 4x5 nature stock shots, but also used his Technika handheld with rangefinder focus for portraiture. He was good at it, but also had quite a bit of Rollei SL66 gear - now that was a nice 6X6 system! But once he got his hands on my P67, he never looked back, and even photographed my own wedding with it. They were once quite popular for pro portrait and studio work in this area. Even the '22 wild elephant calendar my wife just put up on the refrigerator has P67 shots.

I always though of them as handling like a slightly overgrown 35mm camera. Not in a bad way, as I think of my Hasselblad 503 CX with the PME prism as a slightly overgrown 35mm camera in handling. On the other hand I think of the RB67 as a truss buster.

 

[DREW WILEY]

P67's were deliberately designed as a step-up for people accustomed to 35mm SLR's. Durable. Some excellent lenses with relatively wide max apertures; and some truly exceptional teles. For handheld shooting, I greatly prefer Fuji "Texas Leicas" instead. RB's are reliable old draft horses, heavier than the freight wagon itself. I've been a backpacker most of my life, and it's hard to justify any MF system that weighs more than my first Sinar 4x5.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I often wonder who bought Hasselblads. When I worked in a lab in the 90's the vast majority of MF film that came in was 67. It was rare to see 6x6 film. Was it mainly a rich amateurs camera?

Rich doctors.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Rich doctors.

No the party line it not the doctors, but the dentists. They will even pull teeth to get their hands on a Hasselblad or Rollei SL6000.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Oh, no, here is this tired and not very clever cliche about how only rich doctors or dentists buy Hasselblads or Leicas. It tired and not very funny any more. It's been a cliche for the last two or three decades. Lots of photographers buy Hasselblads and Leicas.

Well, the doctors' Hasselblads and Leicas go with their Cadillacs.

 

[Arthurwg]

Oy! Class warfare on Photrio?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well, the doctors' Hasselblads and Leicas go with their Cadillacs.

Well maybe in your neighborhood but in southern California it is more like Porches for interns and residents and Bentleys for established doctors.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Well maybe in your neighborhood but in southern California it is more like Porches for interns and residents and Bentleys for established doctors.

You're younger than me. I'm dating myself to the 60's and 70's. Doctors drove Caddy's and shot Leicas.

 

[foc]

One of the reasons wedding photographers shot 6x6 square format was that they didn't have to turn a camera sideways for vertical shots, it could be cropped when printing to say, 10x8 portrait.
A lot of pros shot with Hasselblads (great cameras) because it was seen as a professional camera and among their peers, it looked good just like a lot of press guys used and swore by Nikon.
I must admit that 6x6 format is a nice one giving you a choice of landscape, portrait or square, all in the one shot. It can add an extra dimension to how you compose the picture in the viewfinder.

 

[Donald Qualls]

On the other hand I think of the RB67 as a truss buster.

Once I got a left hand grip on mine to go with the good strap, I notice the weight a lot less. Even with a prism mounted, it's not hard to hold or unsteady. It's like the camera was made to use with a left hand grip.

 

[John Wiegerink]

ArcBody ... Ha! For the same price, one could buy a Packard (automobile, that is, not a Packard shutter), And for the same level of clumsy dysfunctionality as an ArcBody, one should opt on a Packard with four flat tires. They're branded Hassle for a reason.

And there's apparently also a logical reason why wedding photographers have trouble breaking out of that measly income calling - they should have started with more ergonomic gear to begin with, like a Pentax 6X7. They're great for wedding photography. I once had a co-worker that specially requested I photograph his wedding with larger gear. So I took a studio-style couples portrait using a 4x5, and then went to the wedding itself with my P67, exactly like they requested. But the Pastor's wife told me they had a rule that photographers had to stand in the back. No problem; I came with a tele lens. And just one KER-LUNK of the big SLR mirror, and the resultant shock wave blasted all the intervening guests clear out of the sanctuary, plus the pesky Pastor's wife herself, leaving nobody in between to impede my shot. Why didn't Hassie ever think of a great feature like that?

Drew,
I have a couple of Pentax 6X7 bodies w/ lenses, but never used them for weddings. Yes, they are not as silent as me Hasselblad's are that's for sure. Drew, I had a similar noise problem after I got my first good wedding camera. I was told by the pastor after the wedding that he thought somebody had been shot (gun shot) during the ceremony. I guess he had never heard the sweet sound of a Bronica S2a shutter before. I don't have a Bronica to compare to my Pentax, but I do believe the Bronica wins the decibel game. I didn't use the Bronica very long since I didn't care for folks staring at me during wedding ceremonies. Sold it and bought two Koni-Omega's and that solved the noise problem. The Koni's were great, but I finally went with Hasselblad and stayed there until I stopped doing weddings. Many folks are fans of the square format, but I'm not one of them I guess. When shooting weddings I always cropped in the finder. I might as well have been using a Mamiya 645 camera, which would have also given me more shots per roll. My favorite format is 6X7cm with 6X9cm close behind. Just me of course. When it comes to which camera to start the medium format trek with? Truthfully I could get by with my old Kodak Monitor 620 just fine or a folder similar to it. Some of the older Zeiss folders are very good also. I have a couple Zeiss Netter's and Super Ikonta's that are very nice picture takers with nice big negatives to play with. The big thing is finding a used camera that is in "good" picture taking condition and not just good looking. JohnW

 

[John Phive]

One of the reasons wedding photographers shot 6x6 square format was that they didn't have to turn a camera sideways for vertical shots.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, but 6.45cm format does have its advantage. More shots per roll means less back changes. After I retired from weddings a Mamiya 645 1000S/ AE prism with an 80mm f1.9 and several other lenses dropped into my lap. I really liked that camera and if I were doing weddings today it would be my camera of choice. For tripod use I have a swing bracket for horizontal to vertical, which solves the problem of camera flip. Funny thing is I still have my Hasselblad cameras, but the Mamiya is long gone.
John

 

[abruzzi]

I really liked that camera and if I were doing weddings today it would be my camera of choice.

My first thought was that if I was doing weddings today, I'd really want someone to shoot me.

But seriously, I should have a 6x6 camera--I bought into Bronica specifically for the waist level finder, i.e. the ultra minimal setup--lens, body, back, WLF and nothing else. But I looked though the 1000s of photos I had shot and cataloged in Apple Aperture, and maybe 3% of them were portrait orientation. Based on that I decided that a 6x4.5 stuck in landscape orientation wasn't a huge limitation. Since geting the ETRSi, I have occasionally used portrait with the WLF. It takes some getting used to, and I do it infrequently enough that I have to relearn it every time, but it isn't impossible.

I still have my ETRSi, and I have one of the AE prisms, but attaching that means I need to attach a grip as well so I can hold it up to my eye ergonomically, then all of a sudden, its no longer a small ultra-portable medium format camera, so I never use that setup. Since getting the ETRSi, I've added a GS-1 with WLF, and I use it the same way.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, but 6.45cm format does have its advantage. More shots per roll means less back changes. After I retired from weddings a Mamiya 645 1000S/ AE prism with an 80mm f1.9 and several other lenses dropped into my lap. I really liked that camera and if I were doing weddings today it would be my camera of choice. For tripod use I have a swing bracket for horizontal to vertical, which solves the problem of camera flip. Funny thing is I still have my Hasselblad cameras, but the Mamiya is long gone.
John

HINT: The reason that you still have the Hasselblad is that you are a wise man.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi John. I only shot weddings myself for close friends or family, or for collectors of my prints who demanded work I personally shot, printed, and framed. In such cases, I always charged per print rather than project. A whole different ballgame. But happily given the fact most of these events were outdoors, or basically environmental portraiture, the P67 and a 165/2.8 lens were an ideal combination, and the noise not an issue outside. If they wanted something indoors too, I switched to the Nikon and high-speed color film, since I immensely disliked using flash. And there were some really lovely high-speed color films back then like Agfachrome 1000. I miss that kind of product. I actually printed everything on Cibachrome - yeah, I know... portrait heresy... but I printed it really well, so they paid well. But for the timid, I could shoot color neg film and RA4 print it instead. And others wanted classic black and white work. A token rite of passage, and a little extra income, that's all. But once the 8x10 was involved... that's a whole different story.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Drew,
Only one time did I break out my 4X5 for a wedding and that was for my favorite cousins wedding. He didn't ask for it, but since he was my favorite cousin he got it. Just a couple of formal shots with 4X5 in B&W. I shot all color with my Hasselblad and the rest of the B&W shots with a Fuji 6X9 with the 90mm lens. Everything was outside and God blessed him with a perfect day. All shots came out as near to perfect as you could get.
The only color work I've ever done myself was the old Ilfochrome/Cibachrome. I loved that stuff and would do my own color printing now if it were still available. Some folks seemed to have a hard time working with Cibachrome printing, but I found it no harder to get a good Cibachrome than to get a first rate fiber base B&W print. For color now I scan neg/trans and print with a Canon Pro 10. I really wish the Swiss or someone would bring Cibachrome back, but it's highly unlikely. I have a couple of 16X20 Cibachrome prints from a Fall trip into Canada when the Aspens were at peak yellow. They were shot with my Pentax 6X7 and the 45mm f4 lens. They are just eye-popping good. Did I say I miss Cibachrome????? JohnW

HINT: The reason that you still have the Hasselblad is that you are a wise man.

I don't know about being wise, but someone wanted the Mamiya 645J 1000 outfit and was willing to pay a very good price for it. I'd sell my Hasselblads if I could make the same margin of profit, but that's not likely. The camera is nothing more than a light tight box and I have plenty light tight boxes. JohnW